All right, we will call the meeting to order. At 7:41, we'll rise for the pledge of allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Weird. that angle. All right. Um, any changes to the agenda? Uh, there is we have uh two changes to the agenda. Uh, we had a request from council member Styles to move the um SIU ordinance amendment um down to general business. So, it's now item B. and Linda requested providing the council an update on election related items which will be added as item A under administration under reports. Do we have a motion to approve the amenda as agend motion and a second? All those in favor say I. I opposed. All right. Uh no presentations, proclamations, or acknowledgements. Uh is anybody here for public comment? Anybody online want to provide any public comment? Not seeing any. We will move on. Uh any questions uh to the consent agenda beyond the one item that was already pulled? Hearing none. Do we have a motion to approve the consent agenda? Motion to approve consent agenda. Second. Have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. And the consent agenda is adopted. No public hearings. We'll move on to general business. The supplemental. Nope. Yep. Supplemental compensation study information. So, this of course is some of the continuing work on the compensation study that was completed in 2023. As the council knows, there were some supplemental informationational items that we were unable to get complete because of response rates, etc. prior to the end of the year. And so, this was work that we've continued. So, while we took a look at the basic compensation structure, these additional items were related to what you would say would be supplemental pay, how you calculate overtime, call back, working holidays, those types of items. We did present that information to the council at the last meeting and the council gave some general direction of items that they would want to pursue or supported uh to be competitive and consistent with the market. Uh, one item that the council requested some additional information on was the longevity pay um and what it would cost to implement a longevity pay program for non police non-fultime employees who are not or full-time employees that aren't police officers. Um, so we did go out we took a look at that um within the market and or what the cost for that would be and it is contained within uh the council memo. Um what we determined is that the cost to implement that would be around $33,000 um using this year's fee schedule if we were to implement it for an you know for the entire year. What we found with regards to the implementation is that's really the implement the initial implementation cost because we have a number of employees a handful that have been with the city for a long period of time and so you would have that additional cost of all those employees suddenly getting longevity pay. Once it's implemented though, the cost would be much more negligible going forward because you're going to have an employee an employee here, an employee there, maybe two employees this year, maybe to nobody the following year who would be getting, you know, partial steps every so many years where right now, if you think of it, most of our employees get a step every year. That has a much bigger financial impact than these longevity steps. So once we get past the initial implementation, the cost is very very modest um overall but the initial cost would be um much more substantial. Um so given that information uh we would be asking the council to give further direction on where you would like to go with regards to these items which the council indicated some support for in previous discussions. This would include an adjustment to the police department for years to max step to go from seven years to max step to six to be close more consistent with the market. Taking a look at how holiday pay is provided to um change it from premium double pay on premium holidays or very traditional holidays such as Christmas, Christmas Eve, Janu, you know, New Year's Day and going to one and a half times for all holidays. overtime calculation. We found within the market, everybody counts paytime off towards um calculating overtime. Uh call back going from a minimum of two hours to a minimum of three hours for call back pay when we have employees called back. longevity pay um implementation based on the information we've now provided you going to three hours for court time as opposed to the two we currently provide for officers and providing um an $8 an hour um additional pay for field training officers for police officers so I can't recall but all of them we had consensus on at the last meeting correct except for maybe we needed more information on longevity pay. That is my recollection. Right. So I mean do you have the direction for all the other ones based on the last meeting's discussion? Yeah. So it's really a question of do you want to continue to proceed with those because they obviously all have a a budgetary impact. Um and with regards to some of them we'll have to have discussions with um the public works labor union related to it because they have a contract and so we'd have to modify it. The other question is the timing of the implementation. Do you want to implement it the beginning of the year? Do you want to take a look at the cost of these and weigh it out for the beginning of the year as we work through the budget process? Or are there things that you want to implement within this budget year, either all of them or some of them, knowing that once you do it, it's going to be baked into next year's budget? Any initial reactions? I have What do you think? I mean, so we're looking at what 12 to 15,000 for the rest of this year, but then you know the 33 Well, no, then it's just baked in moving forward, but we have to assume that in the budget. So then that adds the percent and a half or almost 2%, you know, next year. So for implementation within this year's budget, we have a couple things working for us. reasonably the implementation time frame and what we would recommend would be implementation at the beginning of September. So that means you're only having to fund it for the last third of the year. So the cost of implementation within this year's budget is reduced. It's not budgeted, but the cost impact would be less. We also have the advantage that with um is a vacancy within the police department creates elbow room within the general fund uh between now and the end of the year. The impact for implementation yet this year in the other funds. So you'd be talking fire department and the three utility funds. The total dollar amount is small enough that it really I mean there's variables within those departments that far exceed those dollar amounts. So the impact would be negligible. The real thing to keep in mind though is so I think reasonably if the council wanted to we could implement all of these things within this year's budget. Um it's going to be though then they're baked in with regards to the 2025 budget and that's where we're going to see see the impact. I do want to point out one thing. When we're making that estimate about within this year's budget, we're taking a look at where we are year-to date, and we're assuming that we're going to have reasonable budget compliance both on revenues and expenditures through the end of the the year. So, it's a bit of a swag because there's no guarantees, but we feel reasonably that we could absorb within the general fund and the other funds the projected expenses. Well, I guess another way to ask too is, is there any of these that we'd want to stagger out or not implement? I mean, I'm not as worried about this year. I mean it'll be a wash most likely with a variety of different things. It's the are there any that we want to stagger because we want to offset the cost for a period of time for any particular reason and I'm not advocating for that. I'm just which one's the highest cost? So the over the the greatest expense um is going to be uh overtime calculation. Um however the longevity pay implementation is also going to be expensive just that initial you know as you're as you're implementing it. Um and that's primarily because your longest generally speaking your longest serving employees are your department heads and so it's going to have a big it's going to have a big impact. the department has auto it's up to council. So if we were going to stagger anyone or I mean I would think maybe the longevity pay but I don't feel strongly either way. I mean, I think we just get it implemented. I guess my question I what I don't necessarily understand how it will work is with the union contract because they have a contract through a certain time. Would it make sense to make these changes when the contract negotiations are happening? So, we have I have a choice. So, we have a contract. It's locked in till the end of the contract. We're in the first year of the contract now. So, you know, 24 25 through 26 and we could make them implementable in 27. I think there so all the things that we're talking about, especially if they've been provided to non-union employees, they're going to want it. I think there's also a morale issue that you're doing it for these employees and not for us. We've never taken the approach that if there's something we're kind of doing across the board that we wouldn't be proactive. I mean, and to be honest, the union's not going to say, "Hey, no, don't provide us this, right?" Um, we have the ability to like amend the current contract. Abs. Absolutely. We we've done it for other minor things in the past. Um, I've already spoken with the business representative and the shop stewards about it. They're aware that we're having this discussion and they're aware that based on whatever direction we get back from the council, I may be coming back to them to talk about that. Can you remind me of maybe what we were estimating at this point in the budgeting process? What you know we're looking at if we don't just have a vanilla next year kind of planning purpose? What are we looking at for with just operating inflation increases and things like that? What we're looking at for a potential impact next year? I know we're super early. I can't tell you that. Can you guess? No, I don't want to because there's still pieces of information. Always make me guess. There's I mean, I can throw you I can throw you a number, but we really don't know. there's some big pieces of information that we still don't have like fiscal disparities and other items that could have I mean if we're talking like a one you know a couple percent tax impact those variables that are still out there at that point are because this I mean this really just bakes in an extra one and a half percent basically. Yeah. I mean I mean if you take a look at it and you look at um the total implementation cost within the general fund for everything that we're talking about it's about within this year's budget it would have been like $37,000. If you assume inflation and other costs let's say round it to $40,000. You're going to be looking within the scope of the budget somewhere between a one and three/4ers to 2% tax impact to implement it from a tax impact standpoint. There'll be the little bit that'll trickle out into the other funds, but we're talking about tax impact that we can give you. Ballpark, it's going to be somewhere in that one and three/arters to I was wondering what the other stuff what that one and 3/4 to two was going to add on top. Yeah, it doesn't sound like a lot, but it adds up and and we're not I Kelly and I actually were just having this conversation today. We're not quite to the point where we would be able to give you that number, right? I mean, I guess if we do it, we just have to be prepared that now if we want to, let's hypothetically get under 10 or get under eight or get under seven. We're already baking in a one and three quarters 2%. So, we're gonna have to cut out other things. Yeah. To get there. Um I mean, I I I am kind of with Amanda, too. I mean, rip off the band-aid. Uh get it level set. We wanted to be with market. That was the whole point of doing the market comp analysis and everything was to be competitive, slightly more competitive than the rest of the market, and reinforce the awesome staff that we do have, attract more awesome staff. Um, yeah, I mean, I I do love the fact that we have staff that has been here forever and don't want to change that, but we're also a small town and our taxes are, in my opinion, high and I don't want to add to that. So, But I'm with you guys. And we'll still Well, yeah. I mean, so direct, you need the direction now to move forward with it. Longevity pay, all the other things. You'll bring it back. I mean, even if we were to kick it to August, I mean, it's not going to October 1st, it's not going to matter anything. Even we're going to kick it to January. Like, I'm not worried about this year. It's the ongoing. It's the next year. So, once you pull the trigger, it's done. Um, so then there's a question of do you do you need more information before you feel comfortable pulling the trigger? Are there certain things budget's going to look like? I mean I mean really that would if I knew if it was going to if we're sitting on six and a half and this is going to add an extra two. Okay, I can live with that. If we're sitting at 12 and a half and it's like oh my gosh, now we're going to be up to 145 and have to we're not at 12 and a half, right? So I mean I mean so even that I mean it's helpful because that's where I don't want to stick us further into a box. What if something crazy happens and unexpected and and I guess I would I would probably trade out other things than this maybe. So I I might be willing I would be willing to potentially look at kicking other things down the road or kick the can further, but this piece I would be okay with probably advocating for. Feeling good? No. So are so are you so are you bringing this back for us to like approve formally? Yeah. So what we're looking at is direction so we know what action what action items I'm hearing we have consensus to bring it all back to start on September 1st if that's reasonable timeline and everything else. We'll time it with a beginning of a payroll period but yeah it would be early September. Yes. Okay. So, so directed will begin working on those items. So, a lot of it's just policy related. Um, but there will be the union contract piece for those items that are contained within their contract. Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh, SIU ordinance. So, um, you have the memo in your packet, but maybe I'll have Rich give a brief overview of of what it is and why we're recommending that we make these changes to to the current ordinance. That's pretty straightforward. This amendment really looks at um trying to capture from applicants what the expected variations in their use. We're historically told from an applicant, we're going to use five million gallons a year or 20 million gallons a year and that's it. But as explained in the memo, those variations can have impacts in different ways. And we learned that quite acutely this year working through all of the different uh u the pump test and the and the aquifer impacts and the treatment plant capacity. All of that stuff is affected by those variations in use and we're good right now. But we have to when we get an application also consider we've got built into the ordinance some room for growth. We have to consider we have to consider our own peak uses and if those all stack up incorrectly, we really should know that information to try and avoid problems. So this is simply to try and require and enforce more detail from applicants about their variations in water use seasonally, monthly, even their peak days can be very important because some users might be relatively, you know, with a relatively narrow range, but other users might have significant fluctuations in their seasonal or even daily and knowing and can they even predict when it's going to some sort of agricultural related might have a really strong fall water use as it's processing a bunch of vegetables and be flat the rest of the year. Uh it just can be all so we'd like to make sure we try as best they can to give us that information and that's what this is about. Yeah. Yeah. Um is the amendment be retroactive? So no it would not. No. So because we have one indust would have one industrial user. So yep that agreement is done and and approved in in in force right now. And and remind me was there something in either the SIU agreement or in the ordinance that says any updates or changes to the ordinance or the agreement but it must be the ordinance can't uh impact any or the once you sign it has to be two years. There has to be a two-year window or something not grace period but and my brain goes back to I don't recall that. Okay. But but generally speaking, if you have an existing user that's coming in, we couldn't just change it on them the next year and pull the rug out. But even if there is that, if you're outside of that window, if they're coming in to amend it, let's say they're asking for more water. So let's assume like Niagara, they come in for future phases and they need because right now it's it's got a cap. If they want to grow that, let's say double it, make it 50% higher, whatever, they would have to amend, they would have to amend that agreement. And then Andrea, would we have the ability at that time to then to require that request that type of information? I believe we would. Yeah, because they're amending it. So we have the So we would then get that information from although they were very cooperative. We requested that kind of information from them as part of the process. But we want to make sure that we it's not just, hey, we're asking and they're nice and responding. We want to make sure that it's just part of the application process up front. Okay. And I know um I did read the memo and what you said we learned from the pump test, but I don't know if I'm just maybe living on a different planet, but I thought the pump test showed that we can tolerate pumping at even a higher amount without having to worry about um well interference or or anything like that. So I'm just I'm just confused again. But um maybe imagine that we're 20 years down the road from now and we've tripled or doubled in size those that that monthly use if everybody's pumping at the same time could be far bigger than what we did during the pump test. So we do want to know that even though at this point I mean so we're they're they're kind of not the same issue but um certainly a monthly peaking or a seasonal peaking can be more impactful on the aquifer than a uniform usage. I I think the idea is that as you start having more potentially large users on the system and you start stacking their peak over time, start stacking now two or three or four people with peaks on top of our the peaks of our normal residence so to speak for watering lawns. We need to have a better understanding and be able to predict this is where we are, what we have capacity for on the system to be able to handle for those peaks because you build your system for the peaks. Okay? because I know multiple people at multiple times did ask about summer usage and you know watering lawns if if that would matter and I I feel like and I could be wrong but I feel like the answer was always that it wouldn't matter and in fact having a high volume volume water user like Niagara would be good because it would keep like a consistency and so this to me is just saying a different story. No. So you're right. So we we did have those questions. Um but we've looked at this one user and the capacity of our system. This is about getting information from future users or changes to that user and having a better understanding of that information for our system as we develop it into the future. And what you also said was true having and that's separate from this of having a base level a base consistent flow which is more consistent with this user is good for the operation of the system but this is really an idea of being able additionally when we're looking at the system and evaluating its capacity is getting more information to better evaluate the peaking issue. Okay. And then what happens when um we go to amend our water permit again for Niagara's um second phase or do we are we going to get the numbers from them then or will it these numbers are required when somebody applies for service or for a change in service. We will already know from these applications. Say we have five of them in hand and we go to for our next and I'm just making things up. But that information would be used in us determining what our new appropriation should be because when we if we have an SIU agreement, those have there are limits in there. So we can utilize those limits as well as what their historical usage has been if they're an existing user to be able to do an analysis for what we're requesting the operations of our system when we're doing capital planning etc. And when we have somebody wholly new coming in and we want to evaluate it against any capacity that we have in our existing system understanding those peaking factors will be important. Okay. Um and then In the memo, it says that we can come up with strategies to manage impacts on private wells like giving notice and operational changes, ramp up and max rate limits. I mean, what what does that mean? Like, would we give notice to private well owners that they might run out of water or Nope. might be. And we're already required to do this um for our first um for when Niagara comes online. We expect to use more water. We're required to notify people just so they're aware if they see something weird, they know the city's pumping more and maybe it's related. Um that's what that's about. But if we know there's and and as we go through all these water quality investigations for example and we find what the link was, what the cause was perhaps by knowing we expect uh in two months we're going to be increasing or what we can let people know and they might be able to take some proactive measures like flushing their lines more often. I'm just making stuff up again, but it just it's just more information like you talked about in the goals and vision. It's that engagement getting getting the news out. What we've had, you know, I probably had a dozen new complaints after we sent out the invitation for this information meeting. And I think people just had no idea what to do with, oh, I've got this problem. I don't know. They don't know we're doing anything. Now they do. They submit it. So, we start that processing going. But it's Yeah. I don't know what those things might be, but it's not that they would run out of water. We're going to try and take care of that before we ever get to that point. The idea is it might give us more information to be proactive in communicating. Okay. I'm just really concerned with Niagara not being a meeting to participate in this. I mean, what if Well, they didn't have these rules, but we have all that information from them. I remember having the discussion of what their monthly would be because we talked about a monthly tracking uh or requiring instead of just the annual piece of it. And we have that and we know I mean we have to assume unless they shut down shop for two months three months you know I think the concern would be are they going to make up for it and try to you know ramp up and and I think that's where even this is trying to get at you know less less of a Niagara type facility pulling water or user um those that might you know expect to use 10 million a year and they use nine and a half million in July and they don't use any the rest of the year because the department doesn't care. They don't we get to do use We could use it in January and still be in compliance with the department as far as they care. Um Okay. So, I'm hearing based on what we know, we do have the ability to serve Niagara even with their variations. Yep. Yep. Okay. Okay. With the flow. Okay. Um I I got a few questions. So, I just want to make sure I just just so you know, even serving them in their peak month and our peak month, we'd be pumping less water per month than we did during our pump test. Okay. And then what about our um our water treatment plant? There was something in there about the capacity. So, that's where you get to sort of that peak day. Josh gave the example of nine and a half million in one month and nothing the rest of the year. I mean, there could be somebody that has, and I'll just, for example, they do a special operation once a year where they clean all their equipment and they're running water like crazy and they use, you know, a million and a half gallons. We want to know that because that is, you know, pushing. So, the numbers are less important than the fact that we know this slug of demand is coming on that day. We can make sure the towers are full and ahead of time, that type of thing. So that really is about the plant. The daily is about the plant. How many um million gallons of water can our plant hold a day? Now we can we can um process process and it depends how you measure it, but somewhere in the million and a half to two million if we're pushing it. So gallons a day. Okay. And NRA would not with NAR we it wouldn't no impact. Okay. even full buildout, even if we were to hit our, you know, 365, that's still just a million a day. Um, assuming it's consistent, but and that's not all them, right? They're only allowed what? 155. 155 a year. Yeah. Yeah. So, this phase of Niagara is all baked in and vetted. We can serve what they've told us they'll use. Okay. I guess I'm just mostly wondering why this didn't come forward sooner. That's a great question. I think it's just largely um what we've learned over the last year. I mean, we did have some questions about it when this first was adopted, but we also knew their numbers that it could be handled. Um but uh just in in working through decided let's get this uh formalized so that we don't have to rely on the goodwill of an applicant. They don't tell us the numbers. they don't get the the service a little more teeth to it when it's up front it's transparent it's knows know what the expectations are too y okay but I'm sorry one more time you're saying though with Niagara's second phase when we increase our water permit for their second phase they still are they still don't have to give us their official numbers they do they do they have to revise their agreement because it's limited to their first phase Got it. Okay. So, it opens up that again. And if we can't handle it, then we can deny it. And that specifically says right in the SIU agreement that they signed of we I mean we're going to do everything in our power or commercial what whatever we have the ability to influence, but they may be out under our control in our It even lists the things we have to make sure we can provide first before we can consider. We can legally deny it if we can if we cannot right handle. Okay. And we need we need a new water appropriation permit anyway. I mean, unless they got going fast enough beyond development, but we could still even decide if it's within, you know, where we're at as far as development goes, I would think of saying, "No, we plan on this much development over the next three years." You've just gobbled that up with second phase and now we have nothing with water appropriation permit. So, I mean, we would be able to have that discussion there then, too, even if we have the capacity under our current. Okay. And are they aware that their second phase is not guaranteed? in the contract. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Um All right. Uh so do we have a motion to adopt ordinance number 299 amending everything that's listed there. So moved. I'll second it. Uh all the uh any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I opposed. That one passes. Uh and then we need another one. I guess I could admit them together, but uh I'll make a motion to adopt summary ordinance number 300. Second. Any further discussion? All those in favor say I. I. Opposed. All right. Move on to reports administration. Um, Linda wanted to provide an update to council related to general election candidate filing and other any other miscellaneous election related items. Yeah, it was about the candidate filing. Um, I just wanted to remind everybody that the general election is happening on November 5th. What? And and we're going to be looking for three positions that will be open for candidacy filings. and one of them is the mayor for a two-year term and two council positions for four-year terms. Um the candidate filings will be open July 30th to August 13th. Um we will have um we'll accept the filings um at city hall under normal um business hours 8 to 4:30. Um except um we have additional hours on August 13th, which is also the primary. We'll be open till 5:00 for the filings. Um you come in, see me. It's a $2 filing fee and you'll get a packet for all the information for filing. If you have any questions, contact me. All right. Linda, do you have a report on um absentee voting and that process because not everybody's familiar with it about what you can do and when you can do it and how far in advance you can do it and so on. Yep. Absentee voting started June 20 something. Um we have accepted seven applications already or ballots. Um, tomorrow starts direct balloting, which if you come in to vote, you can actually vote on the ballot and then put your ballot into the um tabulator. Tabulator. I always forget that word. Um, before that, it was uh envelope system that you put it in and then I ran them tonight. We're able to uh after business hours run them through. We had seven people come in for this and like I said um the direct balloting now will be open until Monday, August 12th. Um and we do have some extra Saturday hours and that Monday before we also open till 5:00 to accept the absentee ballots. Any questions? Thank you. Thank you. Uh anything from public works? No police department. Um things are going well. Um found out the state of Minnesota has a sense of humor. Soon as Brady leaves, the state says, "Oh, it's your turn to do an audit." So we are working our way through two audits at this point. That's great. Right. And I just want to let you guys know, you heard that I'm going to be gone on vacation. So Josh will be uh covering the city and in charge while I'm gone. So should be in his capable hands. Or he'll submit the audit for you. It'll be fine. I'm going to direct him to just That's all we have. Awesome. Uh engineering, no report. Uh community development, no report. Parks. Can I change my mind? Yeah, you already checked off. I did. I I I crossed off D. Yes. Uh, it just occurred to me that you may get questions from residents or something on the recon project. I've already seen a few calls and voicemails. Um, they've got the streets paved, the curb is in, most of the driveways are done, but there is some work left. There's restoration behind the curb. There's a little bit of concrete work left. We're keenly aware of that. We do want them to come back and do that. they will come back and do that, but it may not be as quick. You know, it's not like I can call them and say get here tomorrow. Um, so we're not badgering. They're well within their contract for substantial completion. So people, I guess we'd ask their patience. Um, the rain all year has affected this job, but we were one of the first ones they started. So, we're in much better position than the eight other jobs they have to do and are trying to catch up on. So, they come back and do work here when they can. Um, and so, yeah, just please be patient and uh then it will get done. Okay. Oh, parks. Um, the item we have tonight is the discussion related to the Wagner Park field facilities reservation policy. So, the council will recall that under council discussion at the last meeting, um, council member Timberman brought up, uh, the topic of being able to reserve the ball fields at Wagner Park for private events. Um, our current policy related to reservation of those facilities limits it to athletic organizations and um, for-profit and nonprofit organizations. basically individuals can't reserve it for their events. So that would exclude. So while we do rent the pavilion for things like wedding receptions and family gatherings and um commercial events and things like that, we haven't uh at any point in the past allowed rental of the ball fields for those purposes. Um the discussion was or the question of the council was do you want to talk about this further? The council said yes. They said, "Staff, can you place this on a future agenda for discussion?" So, we did. So, staff did go through and uh just kind of reiterated this is what our current uh policy and practice has been. Uh pointed out that just earlier this year, we had reaffirmed that policy. Um and what we did in that policy is we created tiering for priorities as to who gets precedence over other people for those events. But we also identified the number of um facets of this that would need to be discussed, evaluated, and possibly decisions being made on if you're looking if you're considering a policy change to allow um those uh the fields to be reserved by private entities. Um we didn't work through all of those. We clearly didn't have the time to work through all of that. I guess the question I would say for the council at this point is do you want to move forward with considering this? If you do, I think given the number of things that have to be reviewed, I would defer it or direct it to the parks commission to work through. And if you have an emphasis on it, um, such as we'd like you to come back with a recommendation on whether we should do it or maybe, um, we'd like to see if we can enable it. Do your best and if you can't, let us know why. Wherever that emphasis is, I think that would be good to be communicated as well because our commission's always ask that question when they get projects sent to them from the council. Or if the council's like, "Nope, uh, we really don't want to move forward with it." then we know that that it's done. Um Kate obviously was the one who brought it up. I talked to her today. She wanted me to relate to the council that she would prefer the former um on this that it get sent to the commission for their review and ultimate recommendations as to how we can accommodate it and what scope and whatnot. I agree with that. That works for me and I would put the extra emphasis on find a way to make it work. Okay. Um so so directed I will um talk to Jake about it and he'll schedule it for future commission meetings. Uh CC we did not meet this month. We'll meet in August. Um scale executive committee um we did not have a meeting u all the scale stuff was suspended in July as was I35. Uh any discussion by councel? No. Any motions to adjurnn? Motion to adjurnn. Second. Uh motion and a second. Uh all those in favor say I. I. I. Opposed. We are adjourned.